------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-11-05 00:39
-------
Anyway, it is invalid because a nested class (like "t") is always dependent, as
you can specialize it. think of what happens if you define this later:
template <>
struct s<void>::t {
};
(now, in this very case, it would be invalid because you cannot specialize this
nested class after having already used the primary template s<x>::t, but the
point is to show that s<x>::t is always a dependent context, even within s<x>).
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18304
